Talk:Authorship of the Bible

Era style
Is it really appropriate to use BCE/CE in the New Testament sections? I totally understand why they might be appropriate for the Tanakh of course.

My recent edit
Yes, @Achar Sva, my reason for that edit was to point out that scholars dispute the notion that the Gospel according to John claims that the disciple whom Jesus loved wrote any of it. If you ask me, that should be on the article because the section currently written for John makes it sound more definitive than it really is. PiratePablo (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PiratePablo, I believe, offhand, that current thinking is that the "beloved disciple" wrote none of it, but that at least part is based on his testimony - this, of course, leaves unsettled the question of who he was. Anyway, the entry in question is presumably sourced, and it should reflect that source (or possibly another source, but it should be sourced). Achar Sva (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Anyway, the entry in question is presumably sourced, and it should reflect that source (or possibly another source, but it should be sourced)" Yes, I cited my source, which was Bart Ehrman's blog. My point is that the article currently says "John 21:24 identifies the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' as the author of at least some of the gospel," yet some scholars, including Ehrman, dispute that, saying that that John 21:24 doesn't claim that that disciple wrote John, but rather that John 21:24 claims that that disciple was the source for whoever wrote John. PiratePablo (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to use a blog, even one by Bart Ehrman. Have you looked at the article onn Gospel of John?Achar Sva (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'd prefer not to use a blog, even one by Bart Ehrman." Are blogs OK if they're the works of well-qualified scholars on the subject in question? I'm genuinely asking. I think it does, because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." But if I'm wrong, please let me know.
 * "Have you looked at the article onn Gospel of John?" Yes, I have looked at that article, and it says that the relevant "verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the 'disciple who is testifying', as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the 'we' of the passage), and that a single follower (the 'I') rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel." Claiming that someone is the source is not the same as claiming that person is the author.
 * PiratePablo (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Royalties of the Bible
We, world wide purchase the Bible in a certain amount..then if there's confusion with the Author of it...then who is the beneficiary of the profit made out of selling it? 102.249.3.61 (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Same as William Shakespeare's works, the Bible belongs to the public domain. But again, some translations could still be copyrighted. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we put the table back in?
The table was removed in this this update in July: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1164148474. I think it should be restored. --Resister (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also agree, but after this much time it will require a bit of work to merge the table with all the interleaving commits. Quantum7 08:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert
"Torah" could mean various collections of books, "Pentateuch" only means the five books of Moses. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)